Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cousinkix1953 Date: May 16, 2007 4:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: David Grisman Sues YouTube

SAN FRANCISCO -- A mandolin player who recorded with The Grateful Dead is suing YouTube for posting his videos illegally.

David Grisman, nicknamed "Dawg" by former Dead guitarist and singer Jerry Garcia, filed the copyright infringement lawsuit May 10 in federal court in San Francisco.

Grisman and business partner Craig Miller, who run the San Rafael-based studio Acoustic Disc, said the case is about helping independent musicians whose music is distributed without their authorization by YouTube's owner Google, Inc.

They say they deserve an unspecified amount of money from the hits -- and advertising revenue -- that that Google gets from their clips.

"We are looking out for ourselves and all the other people like us -- musicians and independent publishers," Miller told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The lawsuit says Google and YouTube "deliberately refuse to take meaningful steps to deter the rampant infringing activity readily apparent on YouTube."

Grisman appears to be riding the same train as Viacom Inc., which has filed suit claiming YouTube used digital technology to "willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale." Viacom says Google facilitated the unauthorized viewing of many pieces of Viacom's programing from MTV, Comedy Central and other networks.

In a response filed last month in the Viacom case, Google said YouTube respects the importance of copyrights and goes above and beyond what is required under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which gives Web hosts protection from copyright lawsuits so long as they comply with requests to remove unauthorized material.

Spokespeople for Mountain View-based Google did not respond to phone calls and e-mails Tuesday.

The newest lawsuit is an interesting move for Grisman, who was close friends with Grateful Dead guitarist and singer Jerry Garcia until his 1995 death. Grisman played on the Dead's "American Beauty" album, and the men collaborated on numerous projects.

The Dead tacitly encouraged fans to record shows and distribute "bootleg" tapes.

But there's a big difference between fan bootlegs and the global distribution of Google, said Miller, Grisman's original manager and business partner for 30 years.

"No one's looking out for the little guy," he said.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tigerbolt Date: May 16, 2007 7:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

"Fuck 'people's music'." laughs Jerry Garcia from a reclining seat in the plush, wood-finished business offices of the band. "I mean, I thought it was a dumb discussion even when it was the big thing awhile back to talk about how music should be free... that music belongs to the people and musicians rip them off. That kind of thing really irks me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: May 17, 2007 4:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Grisman is being silly. Youtube is small and fuzzy with low quality MONO sound. He's not that interesting anyway. Sounds more like a way to get some cash from Google.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bigbossdan Date: May 16, 2007 2:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Two odd things about this article. First is that because Grisman used to play with Jerry he is somehow associated with the Grateful Dead's leniant taping policy. Why is the Grateful Dead's "tacit encouragement" of taping even part of this article?

Second, my memory of every ticket to every show I went to clearly stated no video tape. It wouldn't be out of the realm of reason to think the business arm of the Grateful Dead supports protecting their business interests by pulling videos off u tube and google video.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cousinkix1953 Date: May 16, 2007 2:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

They don't even mention that the Dawg used to brag about making his own bootleg recordings at bluegrass festivals before there was a Grateful Dead. Then Spud began doing it too; and hence that liberal Grateful Dead tape policy. Some of us actually heard their confessions on the David Gans show...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: May 16, 2007 2:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

So what man? David Grisman and many, many others have had their work hijacked and posted on youtube, where google places related links and, more importantly, ads that generate revenue. That is wrong, unless they have permission to do so....

Taping a bluegrass festival so that you can go home and steal riffs from the greats is not in the same league as universal unauthorized distribution.

This is just the beginning of what will be decades of lawsuits against youtube/google.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: sparky999255 Date: May 16, 2007 4:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Highflow...did you get my second e-mail? Just waiting to hear from you so I can get that 12-31-82 show headed your way.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: May 16, 2007 4:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Exactly. Grisman is way an independant - operates his stuff out of his home fercryin out loud.

My girlfriend and I met him coming back to AK a couple of years ago. He was flying up here for a couple of shows. I recognized him, when we boarded the plane I figured he'd be in first class but he was sitting directly behind me. I of course told him I was a fan. Helluva nice guy. Told him we wouldn't be making these shows - no baby sitter. He told me he'd leave me tickets and with the money we saved maybe we could hire a babysitter. I told him I felt bad about that and he said something about all the other times I had paid to see him - paid my share - something like that. Anyway, real cool guy. I made a point to not say one word about Jerry or the Dead. Kind of figured that gets old hearing you know?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 16, 2007 4:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

i'm kinda disappointed about the suit - but i don't know the man - i thought maybe that he was above that, but what do i know - he is in his right

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: shiphappens Date: May 16, 2007 5:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Funny, I don't have any problem with this one at all. I am not an attorney and quite frankly I have nothing but disdain for most attorneys. YouTube is a large corporate entity. They are a for profit organization and the bottom line is to make money and keep the advertising revenue flowing in. They have to be held accountable to a higher standard than say Archive. When you are making money off someone else's efforts than new rules come into play, specifically making sure the streaming vids you are playing to make your money are public domain or you should have to pay for them. If it takes a law suit to siphon off money from a huge profit making machine and putting it back into the pockets of people that put thier blood, sweat and tears into thier music, art, whatever then I am all for it.
And thats all I have to say about that then. (forest gump)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 16, 2007 5:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

not sure you are right there - but i'm not sure you are wrong either - nicely put man

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 16, 2007 5:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

I agree with your uncertainty, Dire. It is what it is. When they did it years ago, Dawg included, Jerry and Bob encouraging, it was viewed as acceptable. But what if the taper had charged admission, thousands attended, and he benefited from the playing of his tapes? Just because the times have changed, and technology allows for rapid and expansive release, if it wasn't 'wrong' then, it ain't wrong now...

They were the biggest anti establishment sorts at the time; no matter how you cut it, this is a classic (we've all done it) reversal...At the time, 1968, do you think they would have taken the side of "little guy" that had a business manager and a lawyer?

My reason for struggling with it to, man.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 16, 2007 5:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

agreed WT - totally agreed - i am as confused as you with this new development - i don't agree with it, and i don't agree with it, but i don't understand it either so i with withhold judgment

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Lou Davenport Date: May 16, 2007 6:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

What strikes me as pointless and naive about Grisman's suit is that YouTube supposedly removes copyright infringing material when alerted to it, and are defending themselves against the Viacom suit with the argument that, like ISPs, they are not responsible for copyright infringement by people who use their service. That argument may or may not hold water in the Viacom suit, but it's hard to imagine Grisman's got the legal clout to follow through against Google and co.

Outfits like Viacom argue that it's unreasonably time-consuming for them to root out and petition for the removal of all materials infringing their copyrights, but how much time could it take Grisman to do that with his videos, for heaven's sake?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bigbossdan Date: May 16, 2007 7:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Know anything about Gratefully Deadicated Sound Sytsem?

To followup on your point, I've heard of this cat who sets up a big PA at bars and festival gigs and does nothing but play crisp, clean copies of shows. I suspect this is not done for free. Is this in the spirit of the "tacit encouragement" of taping? Or is it justified because there is a cost to have the amps, speakers, time to set up? I'm not sure how I feel about all that.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: May 17, 2007 6:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Know anything about Gratefully Deadicated Sound Sytsem?

In Berkeley, that dude is Digital Dave, see calander for 5/10 & 5/24 >>
http://www.ashkenaz.com/html/calendar.php

He has an outstanding sound system for full concert sound.
I heard his setup at the Fillmore in SF at a Dicks Picks 13
Party. Even met Dick there (somehow, that doesn't sound right...)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 16, 2007 7:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Know anything about Gratefully Deadicated Sound Sytsem?

Hey--thanks for posting! Of course, I was just positing a hypothetical, but the point remains...if in the old days someone could make a few bucks, no one cared, but now that they can make a few more, they do?

I just don't think Jerry would have flipped like that. In the entertainment business, I just do not buy (at face value) the argument that 'everyone has to make a living' (sorry Mc, and all the other hard working musicians!) as free press is free PR...it just isn't so simple as it is sometimes presented.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: shiphappens Date: May 16, 2007 5:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

You would make good politician. Just an interesting segway,
A couple of years back David came out and opened The Dead show at Red Rocks. It was the 4 or 5 night run with Joan Osborne. It was sad. The sun was still up and there where still people filtering into the venue. I would say less than half the people where paying attention. I think he deserved more respect and attention then what he recieved. What is up with that? Anyone else there that felt the same way? I am out.
JR

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelley Date: May 16, 2007 8:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

I'm with you totally except I can never understand why people say they dont like lawyers. Seems kind of cliche and stupid.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: May 16, 2007 9:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Pat - what I don't like is the way most things that matter are made so convoluted that you either have to be a lawyer or are forced to hire a lawyer or you else you get screwed. It's bullshit.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelley Date: May 16, 2007 9:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

dude, there are a lot of laws out there. how can it be any simpler or less convoluted? if you get arrested, the state in which you live is going to try as hard as it can to deprive you of liberty, and it's going to use a trained prosecutor to do it. when you get sued by someone, they're trying to take as much money from you as they can, without any regard to how complicated they're making it for you. all parties involved should be grateful for the professional buffer zone between them that lawyers represent. you may not realize it, but you want it to be complicated.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: May 16, 2007 9:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Spoken like a lawyer.

I wasn't talking about criminal law. And I wouldn't expect you to understand being a person who makes their living from things being the way they are.

Here's an example - any reason why tax laws have to be as complicated as they are? Why yes there is - so rich pricks and their lawyers can fuck over the people that don't have the same means.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: May 17, 2007 2:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

As a lawyer, and as a well known asshole on this forum, I can say that a LARGE % of the practicing attorneys I know, not all mind you, are, as Frank said, ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY and would just as soon keep billing a client and matter well past the time for an easier, more cost effective resolution. Like any profession (used car salesmen, insurance, televangelists,etc) there are good ones and bad ones, but the bad ones in this profession are here in droves. It's pretty damn easy for me to understand why most people have a visceral dislike and distrust of attorneys (of course, until they need one). Try being on the receiving end of that bill and wanting to know why you got billed a half hour for that call when it was only 20 minutes and 5 were devoted to asking about last night's game.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: shiphappens Date: May 16, 2007 8:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

As a business owner for over 20 years I can tell you this much. Lawyers are in it for the money. They are bottom dwellers and make there money from dredging the worst from the human spirit. Grow up.
JR

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelley Date: May 16, 2007 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

I have grown up, and gone to law school. Dont you think it would be ridiculous if I said something like "I hate business owners, they're in it for the money?" When they start giving out gasoline and groceries, maybe more attorneys can practice law for some reason other than making money. Until then, we just do the best we can to advocate for other people (who call us or come to our offices first). Maybe your criticism is really of society in general and they way we interact with each other, because lawyers just do what the client wants and needs them to do. Or maybe you're just broke and bitter after some lawsuit. Maybe you should try representing yourself the next time you get sued or arrested. I hear "business owners" are really good at amateur law practice.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 16, 2007 8:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

I hear you, Pat. Some of my best friends are...hmmm, sorry, no best friends.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nagdot Date: May 17, 2007 10:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

isnt you tube like the archive, where an individual uploads from their personal archive.is mr grisman allowing his shows here .maybe times are tough for mr grisman, after all its not like he gets much in royalties from grateful dead record sales. he has to do wat bobby and phil and them have been doing since jerry died and living off jerrys legacy.you dont see bobs or phils equipment catchin a million dollars even if they were gone it still wouldnt hit wat jerry was worth to the ppl. its easier to sue the corporation than to hunt down each individual who has these shows on video. the world is turnin to a bunch of money grubbing hounds.sorry if anyone is offended. peace

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rosey842 Date: May 16, 2007 6:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

highflow,

you are so right. I have recorded my share of concerts (across genres) through the years "just to have." I never meant to do it to copy riffs since I know I don't have that talent. I think anyone, including the Dead family, never forsaw the potential for the internet/ websites that exist today. (How could they?) Let's be honest, in the grand scheme of time, it wasn't that long ago we were all happy with any cassette version of a concert that was available. Now we have soundboards, torrents,etc.

I can understand people being upset with the change in attitude by the artists but at the same time I can understand the artists point of view regarding protection of their work. As to whether or not someone like Grisman can succeed with a lawsuit against giant corporations, that remains to be seen...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 16, 2007 7:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Hey Rosey--hope I am not coming off as contrary wise in the others posts...I do see some point to the other side, but just have trouble accepting the position folks like Bob et al. have taken...still trying to sort thru it, but my gut says 'no' to anything other than let live performances live in any manner so desired by those that attend...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: May 17, 2007 1:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

It is VERY important to note that GD policies are NOT Grisman's.

The problem is this....

If a person is interested in learning about David Grisman, it is very likely they will start w/ a google or yahoo search. Youtube links will most certainly pop up. If that person goes to youtube to see/hear what's there, he/she will also arrive at a page w/ google ads. So in essence they are using Grisman's name, likeness and work to lure potential customers. Unless permission is granted, that's illegal.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rosey842 Date: May 16, 2007 7:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

Tell,

Believe me, I struggle with it too, especially considering the history of the band regarding taping. I for one am glad for anything available regarding live music. One of the first things I did once I finally upgraded to DSL was seek out the shows I had on cassette, low & behold I now have way more than I ever thought I would find.

I'm not trying to stir an argument either way, I'm just vaninly trying to see things from the artists point of view regarding the use of the ever expanding use of technology.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nagdot Date: May 17, 2007 2:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David Grisman Sues YouTube

...article in jambands.com...Grisman asserted that YouTube has a "massive arsenal of misappropriated copyrighted material" and a "deliberate strategy" to encourage copyright infringement. This legal action would appear to put him at odds with longtime Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow, who has been representing YouTube's interests both in court and on programs like The Colbert Report